The language of the 9 February 1996 Tribunal Settlement Agreement is sweeping and unambiguous. Therein, Iran agreed, among other things, that, upon the Tribunal’s issuance of the Award on Agreed Terms, (i) it "[would] not... at any time thereafter... pursue arbitral... proceedings or otherwise make any claim... whatsoever against the United States... with respect to, arising out of, in connection with or relating to [Claim C in Case No. A15 (IV)]"; and (ii) it "[would] waive any and all claims for costs, including attorneys’ fees, arising out of or related in any way to the arbitration, prosecution or defense of any claim or counterclaim before any forum, including the Tribunal, with respect to, arising out of, in connection with or relating to [Claim C in Case No. A15 (IV)]."⁵

Thus, Award No. 602 dismissed the Thirteen Claims, holding that Iran had expressly waived them in the 9 February 1996 Tribunal Settlement.⁶

247. In determining the amounts of compensable expenses that are due and owing by the United States to Iran and, in this connection, in determining, inter alia, whether relevant appearances and filings were made and relevant monitoring activities were carried out, the Tribunal has carefully considered the Parties’ arguments, and it has performed an in-depth evaluation of the evidence presented, including the following:

a. copies of the invoices issued by the United States law firms representing Iran;

b. evidence of payment of invoices, including copies of checks, bank documents, correspondence between Iran and its United States attorneys, Iranian internal communications, and payment receipts;

c. copies of docket sheets for the relevant United States court cases; United States court decisions; filings and correspondence with United States courts; correspondence with and between attorneys; and

d. copies of United States Government statements of interest filed with United States courts.

248. Further, in making its determinations, the Tribunal has meticulously applied the criteria established in Partial Award No. 590 and in the present Award.

249. In application of its broad discretion to determine the length and detail of its awards, the Tribunal has deemed it inappropriate in the circumstances to relate, and therefore has not related, all the specifics of the Tribunal’s analysis of the 179 United States court legal proceedings at issue in these Cases and the thousands of associated documents. Specifically, the Tribunal has elected not to itemize, either in the body of the present Award or in appendices thereto, the individual expenses that it has concluded are compensable or not compensable, to set out the detailed reasons for their compensability vel non, to provide a line-by-line analysis of the many invoices for legal services it has found should be honored or to specify which items within such invoices should be honored and why (or, if not, why not), or to provide the details of its calculations. The Tribunal believes that, in the circumstances of these Cases, providing such a mass of detail would obscure the essential points of the Tribunal’s decision. In addition, the Tribunal does not believe that it is its duty to set out, in this Award, all the minutiae of its decision, given that the Parties themselves did not provide, in their pleadings, a comprehensive, detailed, line-by-line analysis of the invoices and payment documents on record but rather left it to the Tribunal to do so.

250. The Tribunal has elected, instead, to describe in detail the legal rationale for its conclusions on compensability and to specify the aggregates of the expenses it has deemed to be compensable and the evidence it has relied on in making its determinations. In addition, while the Tribunal believes, as a general matter, that it should avoid attaching documents to its awards, it has nevertheless attached three concise Annexes to this Award, listing: (i) the legal proceedings involving claims arguably falling within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction or involving claims that had been fded with the Tribunal in which Iran was reasonably compelled in the prudent defense of its interests to make appearances or file documents after 19 July 1981 [Annex A]; (ii) the lawsuits filed against Iran in United States courts after 19 January 1981 that involved claims arguably falling within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction or claims that had been filed with the Tribunal [Annex B]; and (iii) Claim A cases with respect to which Iran has proven that it has incurred specific litigation expenses [Annex C⁸.

[...]

252. While Article 32, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal Rules provides that the Tribunal "shall state the reasons upon which the award is based," it does not prescribe the manner in which the Tribunal must state such reasons.⁹ In this regard, the Tribunal echoes the view expressed by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion in Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal:

[The statement of reasons] must indicate in a general way the reasoning upon which the judgment is based; but it need not enter meticulously into every claim and contention on either side. While a judicial organ is obliged to pass upon all the formal submissions made by a party, it is not obliged, in framing its judgment, to develop its reasoning in the form of a detailed examination of each of the various heads of claim submitted. Nor are there any obligatory forms or techniques for drawing up judgments: a tribunal may employ direct or indirect reasoning, and state specific or merely implied conclusions, provided that the reasons on which the judgment is based are apparent.¹⁰

253. The European Court of Human Rights, for its part, in assessing the fairness of national court proceedings in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights, has held that "Article 6 § 1 obliges the courts to give reasons for their judgments, but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument [; the] extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision."¹¹

254. The present Award, in a manner appropriate to the circumstances of these Cases, adequately addresses the essential issues that the Parties submitted to it, identifies the factual and legal premises upon which the Tribunal based its conclusions, and presents the rationale for the Tribunal’s decision.¹²

(1) Annex C

Entry No. 24 "Itek Corp. v. Iran et al., 79-2383-MA (D. Mass.)" and entry No. 42 "Watkins-Johnson Co. et al. v. Iran et al., 79-3963 (N.D. Cal.)" are deleted.

(2) Footnote No. 197, page 72

In the first two lines, the words "Aeronutronic Overseas Services, Inc. et al. v. Telecommunication Co. of Iran, C-82-6910 (N.D. Cal.)" are deleted.

(3) Paragraph 195

In the second line, the figure "44" is replaced by the figure "42."

In the third line, the amount "U.S.$70,144.39" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$69,573.39."

(4) Paragraph 196

In the second line, the amount "U.S.$56,070.32" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$55,600.70."

In the fourth line, the word "nine" is replaced by the word "eight."

(5) Paragraph 289

In the Table, fifth row, second column, the amount "5,527.37" is replaced by the amount "5,057.75."

In the Table, fifth row, fourth column, the amount "U.S.$10,827.32" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$9,907.40."

In the Table, sixth row, second column, the amount "7,579.85" is replaced by the amount "7,008.85."

In the Table, sixth row, fourth column, the amount "14,155.79" is replaced by the amount "13,089.42."

In the Table, fourteenth row, second column, the amount "133,367.05" is replaced by the amount "132,326.43."

In the Table, fourteenth row, fourth column, the amount "256,707.34" is replaced by the amount "254,721.05."

(6) Paragraph 290, page 106

In the first line, the amount "U.S.$7,456.60" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$6,795.14."

In the Table, third row, first column, the amount "7,456.60" is replaced by the amount "6,795.14."

In the Table, third row, third column, the amount "16,276.68" is replaced by the amount "14,832.81."

In the Table, fifth row, the amount "84,794.72" is replaced by the amount "84,133.26."

In the Table, fifth row, the amount "194,068.62" is replaced by the amount "192,624.75."

(7) Paragraph 292

In the second line, the amount "U.S.$574,306.37" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$570,876.21."

(8) Paragraph 293

In the first line, the amount "U.S.$842,468.14" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$837,335.90."

In the second line, the amount "U.S.$268,161.77" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$266,459.69.".

In the third line, the amount "U.S.$574,306.37" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$570,876.21."

In the fifth line, the amount "U.S.$842,468.14" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$837,335.90."

(9) Paragraph 294 (a)

In the ninth line, the figure "44" is replaced by the figure "42."

In the tenth line, the amount "U.S.$70,144.39" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$69,573.39."

(10) Paragraph 294 (b)

In the second line, the amount "U.S.$56,070.32" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$55,600.70."

In the fourth line, the word "nine" is replaced by the word "eight."

In the seventh line, the amount "U.S.$56,070.32" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$55,600.70."

(11) Paragraph 294 (e)

In the sixth line, the amount "U.S.$7,456.60" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$6,795.14."

(12) Paragraph 294 (h)

In the second line, the amount "U.S.$574,306.37" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$570,876.21."

(13) Paragraph 294 (i)

In the third and fourth lines, the words "Eight Hundred Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Eight United States Dollars and Fourteen Cents" are replaced by the words "Eight Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Five United States Dollars and Ninety Cents."

In the fourth line, the amount "U.S.$842,468.14" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$837,335.90."

Insofar as the Request constitutes an attempt... to reargue certain aspects of the Case and to disagree with the conclusions of the Tribunal in its... Award, there is no basis in the Tribunal’s Rules of procedure or elsewhere for review of an Award on such grounds.²¹